Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Veteran withdrew their appeal before the Board could make a decision, so the case is dismissed.

The Board denied service connection for herniated discs in the lower back, finding that there is no persuasive evidence to support a link between the current disability and an in-service injury or event.

The Veteran's appeals for higher levels of special monthly compensation (SMC) and SMC based on a need for special aid and attendance with a higher level of care were dismissed because the appeal was already pending before the Board, and the current rating decision is considered spurious.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence and lack of proper notice regarding eligibility for enrollment in the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The AOJ is required to obtain a medical opinion from the Centralized Eligibility and Appeals Team (CEAT) to assess whether the Veteran requires personal care services, supervision or protection, and provide complete notice as required by law.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board has decided to remand the claims for service connection for pancreatic cancer and cause of death due to inadequate VA medical opinions regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's pancreatic cancer. The claims are inextricably intertwined, so the issue of service connection for cause of death is also being remanded.

The Board has remanded the case due to a procedural error in providing notice of the Veteran's right to a hearing.

The Board has dismissed the appeals for service connection of liver cancer and pancreatic cancer due to the Veteran's death during the appeal process.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral shin splints and secondary service connection for alcohol use disorder have been granted. The initial compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss has also been granted, but the claims for increased ratings for knee disabilities remain pending.

The appeal is denied as the Veteran and Family Caregiver applicants are no longer eligible for the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) due to the death of the Primary Family Caregiver applicant, and there were no PCAFC benefits that were due and unpaid at the time of her death.

The Board has determined that there was an error in the initial decision regarding eligibility for enrollment in the Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) and requires a new medical determination considering all available information.

The Board has determined that the decision on eligibility for enrollment in VA's PCAFC program is legally inadequate and requires further review to ensure proper notice was provided, as well as a medically sound determination regarding the Veteran's need for personal care services.

The Veteran's spouse, E., was recognized as a dependent for VA purposes from January 1, 2015 to November 5, 2019.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient information in the file regarding the appellant's service and eligibility for burial in a VA national cemetery. The AOJ is required to obtain additional information from the appellant, including his tours of duty and discharge documents.

The Board has determined that a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination and provide a medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's prostate disability, including whether it is related to in-service events or injuries.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for unpaid special monthly pension (SMP) for aid and attendance of the Veteran's spouse for accrued benefits purposes, as she is not considered a child for purposes of establishing basic eligibility to death benefits.

The appeal is granted for the severance of service connection for hepatic steatosis (fatty liver disease) and remanded for further action on the issue of service connection for urinary dysfunction.

The Veteran's appeal is about the March 11, 2008 rating decision that awarded an initial 0 percent disability rating for eosinophilic fasciitis. The AOJ must address all theories of CUE raised by the Veteran.

The Veteran's appeals for an earlier effective date and higher evaluation for ulcerative colitis were dismissed because the issues had already been adjudicated by a previous Board decision.

The Board found that the Veteran does not meet the criteria for personal care services under PCAFC due to his independence in performing ADLs and lack of need for supervision or protection based on neurological impairments, leading to a denial of eligibility.